I added a new cache on the "big" web site and was "archived" immediately! How can something be archived when it has never seen the light of day? The cracker from Georgia said, "It needs to be something that looks good in a "coffee table " book. There are thousands of plaques and monuments". It was a plaque, but one I felt would be of interest to the local geocaching community. Here's the URL: A Tragic Train Tale It was listed here in a couple of hours.

I had the same problem. My Virtual was refused because the information could be easily found doing searches on the web. If people want to cheat they will. I don't think it is gc's job to monitor everyone's conscience.

Cheating on a virtual, what would be the gain? Any way my cache was quickly approved here. I think my virtual was an interesting place and worthwhile for people to visit. If they wish to cheat then they are only cheating themselves.

My Virtual was refused because the information could be easily found doing searches on the web. If people want to cheat they will.

Good point. I've hidden several virtuals that I don't even require proof of visit for someone to log. Skully, you even hunted one of mine yourself.

I usually publish a photograph of a small, inconspicuous object at the coordinates that the finder has to find. That preserves some feeling of the hunt that traditional geocaches have, but doesn't require placing a physical object, which is impractical at some places you want to lead people to. If people spot the object, they can log a find. If they want to cheat, well, that's their problem. I'm not about to make it mine.

You can get away with cheating on traditional caches almost as easily, if you really want to. Most cache hiders don't match up signatures in the physical log with online logs. Caches get plundered. Physical logs get soaked and illegible. Logging a phony find online is easy. If a cheater doesn't overdo it, the chances of being caught are slim. So, why the obsession with trying to prevent cheating on virtuals? Curious.

You can get away with cheating on traditional caches almost as easily, if you really want to. Most cache hiders don't match up signatures in the physical log with online logs. Caches get plundered. Physical logs get soaked and illegible. Logging a phony find online is easy. If a cheater doesn't overdo it, the chances of being caught are slim. So, why the obsession with trying to prevent cheating on virtuals? Curious.

Very true,

But I get the impression that, over in the other place, they are trying to become the referee of the 'sport' of geocaching.

The problems that they face, in the UK, are manyfold. Already some landowners have said 'No' to a set of rules that were proposed. All because a thread on GC in the UK area suggested that people might not necessarily agree with restrictions proposed.

Now, I admire the people who are trying to get blanket aproval from various landowners, but I do think the efforts are doomed to failure in some cases.

Also, this insistance on a 'demonstratable' visit fails when you can so easily fake it. Why you would want to fake a find is beyond me. I mean, what on earth do you gain?!

The problems that they face, in the UK, are manyfold. Already some landowners have said 'No' to a set of rules that were proposed. All because a thread on GC in the UK area suggested that people might not necessarily agree with restrictions proposed.

It sure is, infosponge. And welcome. Aren't you involved in some value-added geocaching services for the community? My memory tells me that you were offering to help dan out with geocaching statistics. Anything come of that? Anything else going on?

My memory tells me that you were offering to help dan out with geocaching statistics. Anything come of that? Anything else going on?

I was going to take over the stats page hosting from Dan a while back, but I think he changed his mind for some reason.

For a while I was providing some web programming to help people get geocache data stored on their palm pilots, but I got spanked by Groundspeak. (This was before pocket queries and other for-pay member services).

For a while I was providing some web programming to help people get geocache data stored on their palm pilots, but I got spanked by Groundspeak. (This was before pocket queries and other for-pay member services).

The geocaching community was the loser. You would think that a site that was founded to promote geocaching would thank you, not spank you, for offering value-added services to the geocaching community. Go figure.

The geocaching community was the loser. You would think that a site that was founded to promote geocaching would thank you, not spank you, for offering value-added services to the geocaching community. Go figure.

I was the loser too, since I (temporarily) lost the ability to load caches into my palm pilot because I had my computer blocked.

Even though the Pocket Queries were months away, I guess they didn't want anyone muscling in on a future profit potential.

I sent a note to Jeremy ahead of time letting him know I was going to do this and explaining how I was caching the data and retrieving it slowly so that it doesn't impact his server as much as 10 people doing it on thier own, etc., but I never got an answer. Well, I guess getting blocked was my answer.

I am not a big fan of most virtual caches but glad to see there's a place where they can be posted. I've posted a few myself and had 'em turned down. How can a dude somewhere in Georgia know whether a cache in Austin is worth putting in a coffee table book?

How can a dude somewhere in Georgia know whether a cache in Austin is worth putting in a coffee table book?

More important, in my mind, is why a dude in Georgia should care. Or even a dude in Austin, for that matter. List the cache and let the players decide whether it's deserving of treatment in a coffee table book. How many physical caches can meet that standard, anyway?

Hear Hear! I agree. I have long championed the deployment of a "lame-o-meter" for each cache listing. On your electronic log, you get for example a 0-5 scale on a pulldown to rate the cache. 0=lame, 5=awesome. Enough people visiting the cache and you won't even need to worry about whether it should have been approved. Ideally the site would allow you to filter out anything below say, 3. :0 Local approvers are still required because someone local has to check to make sure the cache isn't placed in the nesting grounds of the "deep throated warbler." We have many such preserves here in Austin and ain't no way a guy from Georgia is going to know what the boundaries are. The right person from Austin will.